FDA will now like to ban candy cigarettes and flavored cigarettes. What's next?

[Harry Guerrilla]

The bill was written by the American Big Tobacco companies. Supposedly it's to ban flavored cigarettes that appeal to kids, but of course not many kids smoke them. It doesn't ban menthols, which is what they'd do if they were really concerned about kids. It's essentially an anti-competition law banning imports.

Figures.

I'm sure there is another alternative to Cloves out there.
Maybe roll your own cloves?

 

[Winston Smith]

Figures.

I'm sure there is another alternative to Cloves out there.
Maybe roll your own cloves?

That's what I'm going to do. It still pisses me off, though. I like the Djarum brand, and I think it's dangerous when they start banning stuff for no good reason. Where does it stop?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

That's what I'm going to do. It still pisses me off, though. I like the Djarum brand, and I think it's dangerous when they start banning stuff for no good reason. Where does it stop?

I agree, a pack of smokes is like $5+ now.
I can roll my own for about a $1 a pack.

****ing ridiculous.

 

[Winston Smith]

I agree, a pack of smokes is like $5+ now.
I can roll my own for about a $1 a pack.

****ing ridiculous.

That's the taxes. The government makes a huge profit off of smokers, and they keep acting like we're the worst menace society has ever seen so they can justify taxing more and more. I see them going after the roll-your-own crowd pretty soon, too. Anything that doesn't feed the corporations and the bureaucracy is BAD!

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

That's the taxes. The government makes a huge profit off of smokers, and they keep acting like we're the worst menace society has ever seen so they can justify taxing more and more. I see them going after the roll-your-own crowd pretty soon, too. Anything that doesn't feed the corporations and the bureaucracy is BAD!

They banned roll your own tobacco for sale across state lines and applied a 1000%(?) tax increase to it.
(SCHIP bill)

Some pipe tobaccos make suitable replacements though.

 

[Winston Smith]

They banned roll your own tobacco for sale across state lines and applied a 1000%(?) tax increase to it.
(SCHIP bill)

Some pipe tobaccos make suitable replacements though.

That's just ridiculous. They say it's a public health issue, but what it really comes down to is an obscene amount of greed on the part of the tobacco companies that back these laws. I won't be buying Marlboros or Camels any more, that's for sure.

 

[Mensch]

Bull****. If I didn't "listen to" the Boner's argument, how the **** did I even know it was him making it? Also, using the tired "you didn't understand" crapola argument because I disagreed, is about the lousiest attempt to silence someone there is. I damn sure understand exactly what that pimp for tobacco said, I'm just saying he is a liar, and that his motives have NOTHING to do with "liberty."

Then I guess you and Mr. Boner have a lot in common.

 

[Mensch]

Back when I did smoke, I told myself similar lies. However, now I have to admit the truth, I smoked for one reason, and one reason only, I was addicted. Completely and helplessly addicted. Addicted to a substance that would kill me, in a long, ugly, and painful way. That is the reality of why people still smoke, given everything we KNOW about the results of it, not some obscure notion of "liberty" or other such noble reasons. Addiction, nothing more, nothing less.

Are you in favor of outlawing cigarrattes and alcohol because of their addictive nature? Simple yes or no.

 

[Mensch]

Smoking isn't required to keep living, eating is.

Your analogy doesn't make sense.

Oh yes, eating 5,000+ calories a day is really necessary to keep living.

 

[The Uncola]

Yeah, and if you spend your life abusing alcohol, you end up killing off significant portions of your brain and shooting your liver full of holes.

So what?

Exact how does stating the obvious truth about what smoking does to health translate into an approval of abusing alcohol?

Oh, that's right it doesn't.

Gonna beat down another strawman?

 

[Mensch]

Exact how does stating the obvious truth about what smoking does to health translate into an approval of abusing alcohol?

Oh, that's right it doesn't.

Gonna beat down another strawman?

I am not a smoker, and I never have been. But this is a question of liberty, as the federal government is INTENT on outlawing cigarrette smoking. Are you for, or against allowing individuals to have the right to use their body as they so wish? In other words, according to your worldview, who owns your body? You, or the FDA?

You can sit here and talk about the morals of smoking all you want, the question is about the RIGHT to own one's body.

 

[The Uncola]

I am not a smoker, and I never have been. But this is a question of liberty, as the federal government is INTENT on outlawing cigarrette smoking. Are you for, or against allowing individuals to have the right to use their body as they so wish? In other words, according to your worldview, who owns your body? You, or the FDA?

You can sit here and talk about the morals of smoking all you want, the question is about the RIGHT to own one's body.

"The Federal Government" outlaws lots of stuff, especially when it's one of the largest causes of preventable disease and death. So, what exactly IS your point? I haven't "moralized" a damn thing, I simply stated the reality of the effect smoking has the population and pointed out that claiming "it's about liberty" coming from the Boner is pure unadulterated bull****, it's about cash for him and if you haven't figured that out yet, you're way beyond delusional.

 

[Technocratic]

You don't have an absolute right to bodily integrity, nor do you really own your own body, anyway, so making such a line or argument to attack smoking regulations doesn't work.

The whole concept of natural rights is fictional. :lol:

Regardless, even if one were to apply J.S. Mill's Harm Principle, there is serious indirect harm to the rest of society by encouraging and toleration of smoking.

 

[TexasSam13]

Why am I not surprised that John the Boner would stand up in defense of one of the largest causes of horrifying disease and long, painful deaths on the planet?

As opposed to fast food, which causes almost 4X the health problems in Americans each year as tobacco?

The problem is people choosing to smoke, not the fact that smoking (as opposed to caffene, greasy food, and other "legal drugs") are allowed.

Plus, banning flavored cigarettes won't discourage smoking anyway. Most people who smoke flavored tobacco smoke cigarillos (ex. "Black and Mild's), not "cigarettes". "Cigars" make up 99% of all flavored tobacco products (and are much cheaper than "cigarettes"), so smokers who like fruity flavored tobacco will continue to smoke cigars, while long-time smokers will keep smoking whatever their favorite brand is (since the addiction is nicotine, not the flavoring).

They already tried this with Djarum "kretek" cigarettes and failed - within a month, Djarum just made a few changes to their blend, repackaged them as "cigars" instead of "cigarettes", and they were back on the shelves - at even cheaper prices, since cigar tax is much lower than cigarettes.

But don't let that stop you or the rest of the "smoking is bad" crowd from throwing your mantras into another thread without even understanding anything about how the law or the industry works.

 

[TexasSam13]

Where? What kind of cigarrettes? And finally, for how long?

The govt will never make cigarettes outright illegal (because they make too much in taxes off of them - 90% of the price of a pack of cigarettes is pure taxes). The govt will do everything it can short of actually banning tobacco, just to make it appear to the naive public that they actually care about anything other than their tax coffers.

When electronic cigarettes came out about a year ago (which are a tobacco-free, cancer free, device which vaporizes nicotine and water), the FDA (and several state governments) tried to have them banned, claiming that they "might be a danger to people's health". :rofl Actually, they just didn't want them to compete with real cigarettes, seeing as they can't tax nicotine fluid the way they do tobacco.

 

[Technocratic]

The govt will never make cigarettes outright illegal (because they make too much in taxes off of them - 90% of the price of a pack of cigarettes is pure taxes). The govt will do everything it can short of actually banning tobacco, just to make it appear to the naive public that they actually care about anything other than their tax coffers.

When electronic cigarettes came out about a year ago (which are a tobacco-free, cancer free, device which vaporizes nicotine and water), the FDA (and several state governments) tried to have them banned, claiming that they "might be a danger to people's health". :rofl Actually, they just didn't want them to compete with real cigarettes, seeing as they can't tax nicotine fluid the way they do tobacco.

Well, they do care, to an extent. Government spending on education, tax manipulation has decreased the overall problem over the decades. Doesn't make much sense to engage in a programme that cuts down the rate of uptake and the number of people, and hence taxes, if your only goal is to make money.

Money goes to defray the costs.

 

[Mensch]

"The Federal Government" outlaws lots of stuff, especially when it's one of the largest causes of preventable disease and death. So, what exactly IS your point? I haven't "moralized" a damn thing, I simply stated the reality of the effect smoking has the population and pointed out that claiming "it's about liberty" coming from the Boner is pure unadulterated bull****, it's about cash for him and if you haven't figured that out yet, you're way beyond delusional.

Here we go again. Shall I give you a list of all the things that are linked to cancer? Here in CA, there's a sign that reads: "chemicals known to the state of CA to cause cancer are used on this facilities" at literally every commercial location, from Walmart to Pep Boys to McDonalds to the local supermarket. "Largest causes?" What does that mean? How many people die from motorcycle accidents each year? If you look at that statistic, can we reasonably conclude it is a major cause of death in this country? Of course, we can look at the hundreds of thousands of deaths by car accident each year and then make the logical conclusion (as you have done with cigarrettes) that we should outlaw cars and have everyone ride the train. It is, after all, one of the largest causes of death in this country, especially of young people. So therefore, the logic should remain consistent that whatever is a large cause of disease and death (fast food, fast cars, motorcycles, hiking in the Grand Canyon, rock climbing, skydiving, smoking, drinking, etc) should therefore be illegal. Where do you draw the line? I'll tell you where. At the feet of every individual. Let THEM decide to do whatever they want with their lives, just as long as they don't bring other people down with them.

 

[Mensch]

You don't have an absolute right to bodily integrity, nor do you really own your own body, anyway, so making such a line or argument to attack smoking regulations doesn't work.

The whole concept of natural rights is fictional. :lol:

Regardless, even if one were to apply J.S. Mill's Harm Principle, there is serious indirect harm to the rest of society by encouraging and toleration of smoking.

Wow! You actually don't believe people have natural rights? Even a secular, nonreligious individual should at least admit that his/her fellow individuals do have rights and no one has a right to suppress the rights of others. If you don't believe that, then I guess I have nothing else to say to you.

 

[Technocratic]

Well, the problem with your argument is that it assumes everything is equally practical or has the same consequences of regulation or banning. Whether or not something causes harm isn't the only variable to way in a cost-benefit analysis. It may be the case that the benefits are greater than the harms.

 

[Technocratic]

Wow! You actually don't believe people have natural rights? Even a secular, nonreligious individual should at least admit that his/her fellow individuals do have rights and no one has a right to suppress the rights of others. If you don't believe that, then I guess I have nothing else to say to you.

No, people do not have natural rights. Natural Rights are a holdover concept from the Age of Mysticism. There's no such thing. All rights are legal fictions created and enforced by society. Doesn't mean they aren't good, or useful as ethical-political heuristics. They just are neither natural, nor absolute.

But Libertarian philosophy isn't really consistent when it comes to natural, inalienable rights. On the one hand, they say they are inalienable, and yet...also believe they are not. If rights were truely inalienable, they could neither be forfeited nor suspended. For society to function, rights must be alienable. No right is absolute. It always comes with limtations. Practically, if not theoretically, such has been, is, and always will be the case.

 

[Caine]

Why am I not surprised that John the Boner would stand up in defense of one of the largest causes of horrifying disease and long, painful deaths on the planet?

So I am guessing by this comment that you also are against prohibition of currently illegal recreational drugs listed as 'controlled substances'.

You know, like marijuana, heroin, cocaine, LSD, PCP, etc, etc. ?

 

[Caine]

Regardless, even if one were to apply J.S. Mill's Harm Principle, there is serious indirect harm to the rest of society by encouraging and toleration of smoking.

"There is serious indirect harm to the rest of society by encouraging and toleration of marijuana."
"There is serious indirect harm to the rest of society by encouraging and toleration of alcohol use"

I could go on for years..... :roll:

 

[OscarB63]

"There is serious indirect harm to the rest of society by encouraging and toleration of marijuana."
"There is serious indirect harm to the rest of society by encouraging and toleration of alcohol use"

I could go on for years..... :roll:

There is serious indirect harm to the rest of society by encouraging and toleration of fat bastardhood

Second hand smoke??? meh

unless they are smoking inside your home

unless they are smoking inside your place of work

unless they are smoking inside your car

unless they are smoking next to you on the bus, plane or train

unless someone is forcing a cig into your mouth and forcing you to inhale

...shut the **** up and mind your own business.

Does smoking increase health problems of smokers and increase healthcare costs? sure...but so do a ton of other things that the govt isn't trying to ban.

just say no to fat lazy bastards!!!!!!

 

[Slartibartfast]

"There is serious indirect harm to the rest of society by encouraging and toleration of marijuana."
"There is serious indirect harm to the rest of society by encouraging and toleration of alcohol use"

I could go on for years..... :roll:

And in both of those cases, we should look at the aggregate harm and respond appropriately.

 

[Technocratic]

"There is serious indirect harm to the rest of society by encouraging and toleration of marijuana."
"There is serious indirect harm to the rest of society by encouraging and toleration of alcohol use"

I could go on for years..... :roll:

So? Need programmes to regulate both smoking and drinking to account for their social, economic costs. A ban isn't practical, but other methods are.